Two men are arrested, but the police do not have enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men, and offer both the same deal: if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates with/assists his partner), the betrayer goes free and the one that remains silent gets a one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail on a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept secret from his partner. What should they do?

The dominant strategy of each prisoner is to confess, since for both of them they will be worse off if the other guy decides to not confess - even though, in the end, the dominant strategy doesn't produce the most favorable outcome in the end.

I learned about all this in a micro-economics class when discussing oligopoly, so I already knew the answer to this one. =P

The dominant strategy of each prisoner is to confess, since for both of them they will be worse off if the other guy decides to not confess - even though, in the end, the dominant strategy doesn't produce the most favorable outcome in the end.

I learned about all this in a micro-economics class when discussing oligopoly, so I already knew the answer to this one. =P

But snitches get stitches, man. They should shut they mouths, f'reals.

This game show is built around the concept of the prisoner's dilemma (friend/friend splits the money, foe/foe means nobody gets money, friend/foe means foe gets everything). I miss it. Too many people went foe to make it worthwhile though.

This game show is built around the concept of the prisoner's dilemma (friend/friend splits the money, foe/foe means nobody gets money, friend/foe means foe gets everything). I miss it. Too many people went foe to make it worthwhile though.

I miss old game shows like that which were totally amazing yet for whatever reason no longer exist...kinda like Paul Daniels on Wipeout. (It's a show that started in the US, but the UK version is basically identical.) I grew up with that game show.

In reality, if friends were common accomplices and leaned on frequently, neither would take the bait. The fact that they're offered a contingency by confession means the police have little to go on and are grasping for straws. Given this scenario, you'd be an idiot to rat either person out, because they're obviously looking for a confession to close the case.

You'd be a moron by a criminal aspect to tattle. Both suspects would have far better odds and sentencing in the court system by playing dumb. Criminals are smarter than you think. The debate solely exists assuming one party will take a stance and the other won't, or they both will take the same regardless, barring an innocence judgment. 95% of the time, criminals will place their judgement at the mercy of a jury.

It's also important to note that contingencies grant a good portion of false confessions. It's like torture, except you're given benefits rather than punishments.

_________________These past years have been great, and this community was a great one. Key word being was. Since my birthday last year, the site hasn't updated at all, and people have been slowly trickling away from the forums over the weeks. I've had this site as my internet homepage for ages, and I anxiously awaited the resurgence that I hoped would come. But it never came. So, it is with a heavy heart that I announce my permanent leave of Psypoke. As a moderator, I wished only the best for everyone here, and worked to maintain a jolly environment where everyone could discuss cartoon monsters in peace. Now, I wish all those who happen to be reading this message good luck in whatever endeavors you have chosen to pursue, and that your futures be bright.

Mektar out.

Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:56 pm

Edoc'sil

Pokemon Ranger

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:13 amPosts: 690Location: Avoiding roasted cabbage, not eating earwax, and looking on the bright side of life

I first discovered it in a Psychology magazine. It's very interesting to me-- but I see a couple courses of action. To simplify my answer, let's say someone else and I were conspiring to commit a crime. Before we did it, I'd make sure that we had an understanding that we were to keep our mouths shut. If one of us neglected to mention this, then I'd snitch snitch snitch.

_________________"We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses." -Abraham Lincoln"You can't argue with all the fools in the world- it's best to let them have their way and trick them while they're not looking." -BromCredit to Jester for the avatar!

Yeah, you don't need to think much: "The other guy is probably gonna rat me. So I get a year. Chances of him remaining silent are low. Three months are much less than a year. Nothing is even better. So I rat him!"

_________________

The chill of death, the heart of a metalhead. A lonerebel.I'm a competitive battler, ask me if you have any questions on competitive battling or want advice on Ubers teambuilding.Credit to DragoBoy for the banner!The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed!

Last edited by ChillBill on Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:20 am

Edoc'sil

Pokemon Ranger

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:13 amPosts: 690Location: Avoiding roasted cabbage, not eating earwax, and looking on the bright side of life

Actually, let me add a stipulation to my previous statement: if the crime was Mafia-related, there's no way I'd say a thing.

_________________"We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses." -Abraham Lincoln"You can't argue with all the fools in the world- it's best to let them have their way and trick them while they're not looking." -BromCredit to Jester for the avatar!

The chill of death, the heart of a metalhead. A lonerebel.I'm a competitive battler, ask me if you have any questions on competitive battling or want advice on Ubers teambuilding.Credit to DragoBoy for the banner!The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed!

Last edited by ChillBill on Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

To simplify my answer, let's say someone else and I were conspiring to commit a crime. Before we did it, I'd make sure that we had an understanding that we were to keep our mouths shut.

I think one of the stipulations of the prisoner's dilemma is that there is zero conspiring between the two criminals, which makes things a bit trickier...maybe.

If that's true, then I'd base my answer on something else. If my partner-in-crime was a close friend or if the crime was Mafia-related, I'd keep my mouth shut. Otherwise I'd blab.

Actually, I think I remember seeing a resolution to this dilemma in a psychology magazine the other week. If I can find it I'll edit my post to include it.

_________________"We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses." -Abraham Lincoln"You can't argue with all the fools in the world- it's best to let them have their way and trick them while they're not looking." -BromCredit to Jester for the avatar!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum